Thursday, August 29, 2013

I’ve run a lot of B/X games over the years for a lot of
different people…and by “run” I mean “as a DM.” Small groups and large groups
and ones that hung together with consistency and ones that had a constant
rotating bunch of faces and more than a couple that were simply “one-offs.” The
largest tables had nine or ten active players, the smallest had one. In
nearly every case I can remember…and here I mean, “going back to childhood”…in
every session I can recall, nearly all groups of two or more players suffered
from a distinct disadvantage:

A complete lack of leadership.

Now, I am not referring to the presence of the B/X “caller.” Callers are
useful…especially when dealing with a large, rowdy group that’s trying to make
their intentions known over the noise of the karaoke at the bar. Especially
with large groups, I’ve required the election of a caller, if only to keep some
semblance of organization and efficiency. But a caller isn’t a leader; he (or she) is simply amouth-piece for the group, the medium channeling the spirits that are the other
player characters.

Don’t you folks have leaders in your lives? Authority figures…that’s what I’m
talking about. People who’ve played team sports are used to deferring to a team
captain on the field of play, and to a coach when off. People who work for
companies or volunteer for organizations usually are beholden to someone…a boss or manager or supervisor
or foreman. And military people certainly understand chain of command and
following orders and the importance of both.

Because it IS
advantageous to follow a leader…to have someone with an overall vision who
coordinates activity and provides a direction (and directives) for activity. A
coordinated team with a good leader is more efficient and more effective. I’d
think that would be evident to most people just by experiencing it in their
daily, real lives.

But at the gaming table? O boy…what a bunch of dithering,
bickering, consensus-laden saps!

There are plenty of reasons why groups display a lack of
leadership. All the players are “friends” (or maybe they aren’t, having just
met each other at the table, but they would like to be), and want to consider
each other equals. After all, all the players are Capital H Heroes, right?
D&D is supposed to be “fun,” and telling people what to do (or taking orders
from someone) creates discomfort or feelings of resentment (depending on which
role you fall into). Authority figures remind people (uncomfortably) of their
daily lives which they’re trying to escape in game play. Players may not be “A”
type personalities (that’s usually the dude who gets assigned the gig of
Dungeon Master) and aren’t used to stepping up into leadership roles…this one is
especially true of kids who are more used to taking orders (from teachers, parents, coaches) than giving orders.

And perhaps for folks who learned to play D&D from a
young (kid) age, this behavior of “free-for-all,” lack of leadership is simply
learned behavior carried over into adulthood. ‘We never elected a leader when
we played as kids, why do so now?’

Yeah, well, your characters gotsmoked a lot as kids
and you cared a lot less about it, too. NOW, you act all cautious and shit to avoid
getting killed…to the point that the whole group dithers around and is hesitant
to take assertive action. At least, that’s what it feels
like to me. Sure if something obvious
triggers a proactive action (“A chest? I’ll search for traps!”), individuals
are likely to stand forth. Otherwise, there’s simply a bunch of cautious
negotiation (for the players who are wary of stepping on each other’s toes) or
outright chaos (for the players inclined to “do their own thang;” though they're a rarity
amongst adult gamers).

That’s been my experience, anyway. The intrepid party of
adventurers is approached by a group of [insert
semi-intelligent humanoid monster race]. “Should we talk with them? They
might not be hostile?” “Does anyone speak their language?” “Maybe they speak
common. Or we can try signing.” “Who has the highest Charisma?” [lots of consultation] “Do you want to do
it or should I?” “Maybe the magic-user should have a spell ready?” “Do we know
who’s going to attack if everything turns sour?” “Who’s holding the torch
again?” Etc., etc.

It’s not just creature encounters, by the way. I clearly
remember, while running a large group through White Plume Mountain, multiple
instances when the party got “bogged down” upon being confronted by some trap
or obstacle. Multiple ideas for circumventing the hazard would be hashed out,
batted around, considered…but no one would make a frigging command decision. At some
point, one has to act…someone needs to take charge and say, “hey, this is good
enough…let’s try it.”

How many times have I heard, “let’s put it to a vote,”
and wanted to pull my hair in frustration. It’s not rocket science folks, it’s
D&D and things certainly don’t need to be solved by committee!

On the other hand, you do get the occasional impetuous
personality who’s willing to fly off the handle (solo) and put everyone else at
risk. I’ve seen this both in games I’ve played (as a player) and games I’ve run
as a DM. My buddy, Steve-O, is
semi-infamous for this in fact. It’s not that he gets bored or frustrated at
the consensus process (Steve’s a non-conflict, Libra-type himself)…it’s just
that he sees a void of action, gets
an idea into his noggin, and proceeds to fill said void. Sometimes the result
is a spectacular success; usually it’s the exact opposite. The thing is: Steve
is perfectly
happy to follow someone’s lead. I know this from having known Steve outside of gaming for more than 25
years. But no one ever attempts to rein him in. No one steps up and fills the
leadership role…and neither does Steve.

[besides, it’s often humorous for everyone to see where
Steve’s ideas take him. It’s just less humorous (for the players anyway), when
his antics lead to a TPK or other clusterfk]

Now in addition to all the other reasons listed above,
one of the problems with establishing a leader in a party…even assuming the
players are mature enough people to elect someone to shogun the group, if only
for a session or two…is the lack of quality examples in fantasy literature. I
mean, most fantasy literature (and cinema) – which is what informs a lot of our
ideas on “fantasy adventuring” – showcase a single individual, not a group of
individuals. Conan. Elric. Perseus. Whatever. Sometimes there’s a pair, but
usually the focus of fantasy stories is on ONE person with everyone else
denoted as “side-kicks.” And D&D isn’t about “one dude plus supporting
cast.” It’s a group effort. The
stories told are not about a single character; they’re about what happens to
an ensemble cast.

Unfortunately, other than TSR produced fiction (a la Dragonlance), there’s only one place to find an “ensemble
group of equals,” and that’s the prototypical adventuring party found in the
prototypical dungeon detailed in Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring. The
fellowship consists of an all-star group of adventurers: a couple of heroic
warriors, a dwarf and an elf, a wizard, as well as several hobbits (not a
single one of which is a thief, by the way). And as a bonafide “fellowship,”
everyone’s on a more-or-less equal footing with each other (it helps that most
of the characters are princes or royalty in their own way). Sure, most of the group defer to
Aragorn, who in turn defers to Gandalf…but Gandalf often asks Frodo what he feels is the best or correct course
of action. In the end, of course, the fellowship splinters, but it operates
effectively with its “group of peers” attitude, while it lasts.

BECAUSE IT’S AN
F’ING FAIRY TALE NOVEL, PEOPLE.

Written by one guy (Tolkien)
with a single agenda (as the author) to spin a good yarn. Real human beings don’t function so well as a
true democracy…at least, they tend to be a lot less effective without a brain directing the body.

So then what’s the answer to the quandary? And what (if
anything) does it have to do with fighters?

[*inhale*]
Okay, here goes:

First off, I think it behooves a group of players to
elect a leader from amongst themselves. Now, the leader may only be
temporary…should, in fact, only be allowed to remain in power as long as he (or
she) is doing a good job…and may only be for a single session. Now a GOOD
leader isn’t a domineering tyrant…the wise leader will ask input from his (or
her) fellows in order to make decisions, and will respect the opinions of those
in the group.

Because truly the player characters ARE all
equal…at least in the terms that they are all ambitious, special, and uniquely
talented individuals, heroically braving dangers that normal folks wouldn’t
dare to encounter.

Okay, having said that a good leader should listen to the
opinions of his or her peers, the leader still has to LEAD. That is, the leader has to be decisive…has to make decisions
and then pull the trigger and have
those decisions executed by the other party members. Assuming the player is
elected to the position by the other participants at the table, those “other
participants” have to abide by the leader’s decisions…at least until those
decisions prove the leader inept, incompetent, or morally corrupt.

[and even in those
cases, it might be best for the leader to remain in charge, depending on the
alternatives available!]

The leader should not be a “consensus builder.” Adventuring
(especially underground) is the fantasy equivalent of being on a war-time
mission, more often than not, and is neither the time nor place for
facilitating a brainstorming session. For this reason, the choice of leader
should often be informed by the experience of the possible candidates…that is,
it’s useful to have a player with more experience (not “experience points” but real, gaming experience) act as the leader.
But what about when all the players have roughly the same general knowledge
base? Because (as I mentioned earlier) B/X isn’t rocket science, and a person who’s played for six
months (or less) will probably know as much as the guy who’s played six years (or more).

Well, after experience, I'd say the choice of leadership
more often than not should come down to a question of temperament.
Who’s willing to take charge? Who’s untroubled by conflict and willing to become
embroiled in confrontation? Who’s ready to stick their neck out and lead by
example?

From a game mechanics point of view, the character best
suited for the gig is the fighter.

Why the fighter?
Why not the intelligent wizard or the wise cleric or the crafty thief? Why the
blunt instrument fighter? Because the fighter is best equipped for the job. A
character’s ability scores (great knowledge or spiritual understanding) don’t
translate to any of those intangibles that make a good leader, they simply give
bonuses to languages known and saving throws. The fighter, by the nature of the class, suits the temperament of decisiveness needed for a leader. They are designed for staying power, with their high armor
class and hit points. They are built to forge
ahead into the thick of battle, with their high strength and attack
abilities. The are able to amass power
(at high levels) by carving out a barony, attracting troops and vassals to
their banner, and making war as needed.

The magic-user is powerful and intelligent, but too weak
and easily killed to lead. The cleric is tough, but is looked to for support, especially
as he gains in level, and often has his attention divided. The thief, while
clever, is seldom considered trustworthy, and suffers from the same fragility
as the magic-user. And the demihumans are limited in the role they can play
over-time, both due to their level restrictions and their inhuman nature (at
least in a campaign world dominated by the usual human settlements).

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

We’ll start out our fighter love series with that house rule I talked about ripping off from Jon in my last post.

One of the
things I liked about DCC (yes, there
are/were SOME things I liked about
DCC) was the concept of special combat
maneuvers for fighters, as well as the gradual increase in ability to
perform those combat maneuvers. Having said that, I found the execution of those combat maneuvers (in
play) to be frustrating in two regards:

They happened too infrequently.

Their effects were too limited (too rigidly or narrowly
defined).

But again (and just to emphasize) it’s the execution that
tanks. The concept, the idea, is an
excellent one:

It makes the fighter “special” in combat (where fighting
should be the fighter’s specialty).

It gives a mechanic that can “spruce up” battle (less
“boring”).

It adds another bennie that “levels up”
(development/growth over time).

Currently, there is a certain “dullness” to Old School
combat, only flavored/colored by the narrative of the DM and players. Now, yes,
this can still be plenty exciting, especially at lower levels with dangerous
encounters when a lucky blow can (or two) can knock a PC dead. But sometimes it
would be nice to do a “special effect” with your attack, similar to DCC’s Mighty
Deeds of Arms which include (for those who don’t know) blinding
attacks, tripping and throws, push backs, disarms, troop rallying, precision
shots, and defensive maneuvers. Done with a little tactical cunning, these
things can add to a party’s effectiveness in addition to making the “hit point
attrition mini-game” a little more interesting.

Because – especially at high levels, and when fighting
large monsters – the steady drone of clacking dice and counting HPs becomes
tiresome. How many successful attacks
does it take to take down a 20 hit die T-Rex? Wouldn’t it be nice to blind
the thing or do that cinematic maneuver where you jam something in its mouth
(like a big bone or tree branch) to keep it from biting? Is there a way for the
heroic fighter to defeat such a monster in heroic (and clever) fashion, rather
than just standing toe-to-toe and swinging away? I’d prefer there to be something for the fighter, rather than
just waiting for the spell-user to neutralize the big threat…why must my fighter
be nothing more than a glorified bodyguard for the artillery?

Jon’s idea (if I’m remembering correctly) was to roll two
different D20s for an attack roll, one a “regular attack die” and one a
“special attack die.” If the “special” D20 scored a “hit” you could attach an
effect of some sort to the opponent, even if you failed to do damage with your
“normal D20” (i.e. even if you rolled a miss). The example he gave might be
something like tossing sand in the opponent’s eyes so they suffer an attack
penalty in the next round. If you succeeded with both rolls, you got to add
damage, too. If you succeeded with the attack die, but failed with the special
attack, you’d do normal damage without any added effect.

All that is too complex for my brain to remember, plus I
hate asking players to call colors and whatnot (“Which die is the special
attack? Which die is the normal attack?”). So here’s my riff:

-Your character can choose whether or not to do a
combat stunt.

-If you choose to do a stunt, roll 2D20 for your
attack instead of 1D20.

-If both D20s (with normal bonuses) result in
“hits” you can narrate your combat effect.

[regarding normal damage: remember that I generally use the D6 default as standard in my B/X games or D8 for slow, two-handed weapons. I might adapt this as well saying, "you can do D8 damage if you choose a slow stunt" acting at the end of the round]

The B/X Companion has two-weapon rules.

This for me is simple and straight-forward. There’s a
little risk-reward going on here (it’s easier to roll a hit with one D20
as opposed to two). Fighters, who have better attack rolls, will have an easier
time succeeding at combat stunts…and their ability to DO those combat stunts
will get easier as they go up in level. Yet other adventurers can still try stunts, too.

Most combat stunts will probably be used in melee, seeing
as how fighters (with their high prime requisite STR) will have a better attack
roll in melee, but archer-types with high DEX might well attempt “ranged
disarms” and “bullseye” type shots. Here are some ideas of the types of stunts
that I'd allow:

Cripple: used
to give a character a penalty for the remainder of the combat, no more than -2 (though additional crippling results
might be cumulative). This could represent a cut that drips blood in the eyes,
knee-capping or stomping an ankle, or giving someone a nagging wound of some
sort. The opponent can withdraw and spend D4 rounds of self-ministering to
recover from the crippling attack.

Delay: a
temporary “stun” attack that prevents the creature from taking any action for a
single round. This could be a kick in the groin, a trip attack, sand in the
face, or a stick in the craw of a large monster (like a T-Rex). The creature
cannot move or attack (or cast spells) while delayed. Usually only a single
delay can be performed on the same opponent in a single combat. If the combat
stunt occurs at the end of the combat round (after the opponent’s normal
action), the opponent is delayed in the following round.

Disarm: usable
against opponent’s with weapons only, though it may be possible to maim a
claw/claw/bite creature’s natural attack (broken wrist, for example). If the
disarm is temporary (the opponent’s weapon can be retrieved), the stunt
automatically works. If the disarm is permanent for the remainder of the combat
(breaking an opponent’s weapon, crippling an opponent’s natural attack), then
the opponent is allowed a save versus
wands to resist.

Hamper:
hamstring an opponent (or leave a dagger in its paw or similar) to limit its
movement. The opponent’s movement rate is halved for the remainder of the
combat and for one turn thereafter.

Incapacitate: a
knock-out blow of some sort. The character must have equal (or more) levels
compared to the level or HD of the opponent; for example, a 3rd
level fighter can’t knock-out an ogre. Giant monsters (larger than 7 hit dice),
may be immune to this combat stunt unless the PC can provide some justification
(like using a girdle of giant strength to slug the creature with a tree trunk
or boulder). The opponent is allowed a
save versus poison to resist this stunt. The creature wakes up shortly
after the combat ends.

Intimidate: perform
some incredibly intricate attack or maneuver to break the will of the opponent.
If successful, the opponent must make a morale check. This combat stunt only
works on opponents with fewer HD/levels than the PC performing the stunt. The
morale check may be adjusted if the opponents outnumber the PC or PC’s party. When attempting to intimidate a group of opponents, the stunt must be performed against the leader of the opponents (i.e. the attack roll is made against the biggest badass of the opposing side).

Push: maneuver
the opponent in the direction desired, driven and directed by the PC performing
the stunt. This can force a creature back over a ledge, or back into a
bottle-neck area (like a doorway), or turn a creature so a buddy thief can
backstab the opponent.

Take-Down:
this combines both the delay and push combat stunts as the character
takes the opponent to the ground; the difference is that the PC goes down with
the creature and must spend a round (their next available action) in order to
regain his or her feet. The PC can decide to maintain the take-down, taking no
other action, in order to keep the opponent on the ground in subsequent rounds,
but the opponent is only delayed for a single action and may proceed to attack
the PC while on the ground.

Okay, that’s all I’ve got off the top of my head for
combat stunts (though others may think of others that don’t fit into these
categories). I haven’t had a chance to play-test any of these yet, so I’d be
interested in hearing from anyone who has a chance to use them.

Thanks to everyone who encouraged me with kind words and cold, hard cash...especially the latter. Your monetary support finances my future publications and I really, really, really wouldn't be able to do it without that.

There will be more 5AK updates in the future (as I develop some on-line support mechanisms), but for right now I'm just satisfied that there are a couple different mediums for people to acquire the product. And, yes, I'm a little relieved to know I won't have to field questions about "when's the PDF going to be available?" over the next several months.

Happy reading! Please email me any thoughts, questions, or comments you have. If you write a review somewhere, let me know so I can take a look! Thanks again!

Sorry, folks…took the weekend off for “family time” as my wife
just got back in town after being on the road for a couple weeks. Also had to
deal with the tail end of the crazy houseguests (they left today after nearly three
weeks), a flat tire (because my twelve year old car doesn’t have enough
issues), the Mariners dropping three in a row (at home), and the general
excitement of NFL preseason. Hmm…now that I think about it, do I really need to
apologize for my slow posting?

Well, a few quick notes:

I’m heading out of town Wednesday myself (well, Thursday,
but I’m sure Wednesday will be crazy in preparation) and won’t be back till the
following Wednesday. A quick/short vacation, but a necessary one. What this
means is that Tuesday (maybe Wednesday) will be the last day I’m able to mail
out copies of Five Ancient Kingdoms
this week…if you place your order after Tuesday, the books probably won’t go
out in the mail until next week sometime.

In addition, people should be aware that there’re only a
couple more than a dozen packages left for mail. I’ve got more books, but I’m
currently waiting on the new dice order (which I’m expecting by next week if
not this week) so I can do another shrink-wrapping session. If you don’t get one of
the next fourteen packages, your order might not be mailed for a week-ten days
anyway.

Still waiting on Book
3 and the adventure to be approved over at DriveThruRPG. Not sure what the hold-up is. This is a little
frustrating, in part because I haven’t seen much said about Book 3 on the blogs…and Book 3 is (I feel) where I’ve made some
of the more drastic departures from other “old school” clones and
heartbreakers. If you’re interested in what people are saying, here’re are a
couple of the reviews I’ve seen (if you’ve written one I haven’t seen, please
feel free to email me a link or post in the comments section).

Okay, that the housekeeping stuff (other than I’m hoping
to get my fighter stuff written and scheduled for post in the next couple days).
Here’s the “fun stuff.”

Spencer Estabrooks
writer-director of the “web-series” One
Hit Die, emailed meabout a
week ago suggesting his new show as something my readers might be interested
in, and saying they would be interested in having reviews or doing interviews
or “whatever” to publicize the project. Much as I like having that kind of blank check to hold over someone’s head, I’ve never been much of an interviewer, and
my reviewing ability is notoriously slack unless a moment’s passionate
inspiration happens to coincide with a block of free time. I’m actually
backlogged on writing reviews of the free shit people have already sent me (which
probably doesn’t endear me to said publishers/writers/creators)…but, well, what
can I do? I’d love to spend all day reading, watching, and writing reviews but
the gig doesn’t pay enough.

Which is probably just as well, as it allows me to be a
little more honest when I do write a
review.

Fortunately or unfortunately for Mr. Estabrooks, I have a
bit of a dramatic background and I tend to watch more TV than I probably
should. I’m not much for “web-series” drama, but after seeing the success of
shows like Adventure Time (which is all over Mexico now…backpacks, lunch
boxes, etc.) making the jump from web to television, and after devouring the
straight-to-Netflix House of Cards, I’m not about to underestimate the power of
“what’s possible.” Back when I was in college, a group of actor friends were
trying to put together something for public access television with the idea of
morphing it into something bigger. However, that pipe dream died due to the strict regulation of PA and its prohibition against
commercial gain. The internet is the freaking Wild West for people with the
right amounts of ambition, audacity, and organizational ability.

So, yeah, maybe One
Hit Die is a hard sell, but it’s not altogether a pipe dream.

OHD is a weird
little animal. The one sentence description (provided by Mr. Estabrooks) is
“like D&D but shot like The Office.”
For those familiar with The Office,
this means it’s in that pseudo-documentary style that uses hand held cameras
and one-on-one cast interviews, to give it a casual, reality show feeling
despite being a scripted comedy. The difference is that shows like The Office and Parks and Rec which it apes all take place in the (more or less)
“real world” while the setting for One
Hit Die is a fantasy environment/setting. The protagonists are not people playingDungeons & Dragons…instead, they are actual characters (as in player characters): a
fighter, a thief, a wizard, and a healer/cleric.

Or are they?
The characters constantly make reference to game mechanics…like “gaining
experience points” and “leveling up” or attack bonuses and the effects of
surprise…which makes it feel like they are LARPers
wandering around in the brush. And yet the world is also “real” with actual
monsters (nicely done goblins), and killing and bloodspill and magic. This
makes for a jarring effect at times. It’s an additional breaking of the 4th
wall (already broken by the style of the production); a break in the
(razor-thin) suspension of disbelief that shows like The Office have helped to build with regard to this type of show.

[what I mean by
this: regular viewers of the pseudo-doc-comedy are used to the style of this
filming and have no problem believing that we are simply watching a documentary
of real folks who happen to be buffoons, when the reality is the show is
completely scripted and acted by professionals…even the “documentarians” who
occasionally appear in later episodes are still actors pretending to be members
of the production crew. However, people used to a more traditional television
production like, say, How I Met Your
Mother or whatever can find the style incredibly distracting. People of my
parent’s generation and older, for example, don’t always like or appreciate
this type of show and find it “hard to watch,” as I’ve been told on more than
one occasion]

I’m used to watching this style of show but…perhaps
because I hadn’t known what to expect…it felt disjointed to me. I guess, the
way to make sense of the program is to think of the characters living in an
alternate dimension called “D&D World” where the people are self-aware of
the mechanics that underpin their universe. In our universe, someone “counts
calories” because they’re trying to watch their weight; in D&D World, characters count XP to track their sense of self-worth.

Or something like that.

Once you can reconcile that (such that the characters self-awareness doesn’t bug you),
it’s not a bad watch. The show currently exists as a four-part “prologue” on
YouTube (I’ll posts the links below), each video running around 6-8 minutes.
Production values are low as is usual for this kind of grassroots project.
Attention is paid to costuming and make-up effects but the armory budget was
pretty cheap; none of the characters are wearing the armor one would find in a
low level adventuring party, for example. Acting is generally good, but either
the script-writing could be improved or (if there’s a lot of improvisation
occurring) there needs to be a stronger hand with the editing in order to
tighten the soliloquies and dialogue, at least in some instances. Other than that…

It’s pretty amusing. I found myself chuckling at several
parts, and laughing out loud (something I rarely do) at least a couple times.
If you have thirty minutes to spare for cheap entertainment, I don’t think you’ll
be too disappointed.

It also pays to watch all four episodes, as the series gets better with each. I don’t
know if it’s because I got used to the “D&D World” setting, or simply that
the production became better as the show developed. I only snickered once or
twice in the first episode, and if I hadn’t bothered to watch the later
episodes (I almost didn’t), I probably wouldn’t recommend the thing. Webisodes
#2 through #4 (which are set-up by #1) makes the whole thing worth watching, in
my opinion.

I really don’t want to talk too much about what actually
happens, because I think the characters (their levels, their abilities, etc.)
are (humorously) revealed over the course of the prologue series. I’d just say:
watch the show with a B/X eye for what is occurring. Really…put on your Tom Moldvay
goggles and ignore the non-D&Disms (like any references to “mana
regeneration”).

Oh, yeah…and I really liked the opening credits with its
mash-up of table-top gaming and “Game of
Thrones” style graphics; that also made me chuckle. I don’t know how long
the people doing One Hit Die can
sustain (or even want to sustain) this project, but with a little more budget and a
little tighter scripting, it could be a pretty entertaining series…though at
this point it’s probably more fun for table-top gamers than for the average
viewer. Maybe they can get picked up by the G4 network.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Just so folks don't think I've totally got my head in the sand regarding stuff flying around the blog-o-sphere...

You can see my thoughts on the subject of sex at the gaming table in this previously written series of posts from May of 2010:Sex and D&D (Part 1)Sex and D&D (Part 2)Sex and D&D (Part 3)Sex and D&D (Part 4)
My thoughts and feelings on the subject haven't changed much, except perhaps to solidify. Folks who've purchased my fantasy adventure Five Ancient Kingdoms will see it includes rules for romance, a strong element of most fantasy adventure stories.

Friday, August 23, 2013

[boy, it sure has been a week for puncture wounds and bleeding. I won't go into it at the moment...we're all alive and well...but, well, take my word for it]

I know there are plenty of readers (or, at least,
subscribers) who continue to play B/X as their game/edition of choice and who
wish I would continue to put out more B/X content. And that’s not an unreasonable
demand…I mean, the blog IS billed as “B/X Blackrazor,” right?

The thing is B/X is the
origin of my “fantasy gaming” passion. B/X was the first RPG I learned and
played…it’s how I cut my teeth on the hobby. Even when I (in my childhood) moved into Advanced D&D game
play, I (and my fellow players) brought a lot of B/X sensibilities. When rules
in the advanced game didn’t make sense or were incomprehensible to our twelve
year old minds, we would default back to B/X for our rules frame despite that
(as young teens) we were scoffing at the idea of “race as class.”

I still carry
those B/X sensibilities with me. I’m writing new games and new rules and new
systems, but I’m drawing them up in comparison to B/X. Even DMI which has card
mechanics unlike anything in B/X still has pieces of B/X (like class and level
and random tables, depending on the version). B/X is my foundation of gaming.
When I write a game that has nothing in common with B/X, the press release in
my mind is saying, “This game, unlike B/X, uses A, B, and C…”

But the "B/X" is still there. Just so you know.

Anyway, I’ve got an idea for a possible house rule B/X
players might want to incorporate into their games. For the record, the basic
concept is ripped off from Jon/Red Beard from a conversation we had at Dragonflight…he and his co-DM have been
working on something similar for their games. I’m taking it, refining it a bit,
and running with it. It addresses a couple issues/complaints I’ve heard more
than once over the last couple years:

-The “boring sameness” of B/X combat compared to
later editions (specifically 3rd edition and later). And in
conjunction:

-The lack of interesting maneuvers (or
“boring-ness”) of the fighter class…especially
(again) compared to the customizable concept found in D20 (through the
selection of “feats”).

Now, personally, I
am a big fan of the fighter. I like to play fighters. I don’t often get the
chance to do this (for a variety of reasons), but that doesn’t matter much
since I tend to play all my characters like a fighter anyway…you know,
kick-in-the-door, take-no-prisoners, etc. There’s a simple elegance to an
archetype that’s the character class equivalent of a blunt object. I mean, let’s face it: the fighter is built to soak and inflict trauma. Any other use
of the class is counter-productive.

Fighting is the fighter’s purpose in
life. Everything else is incidental.

One of the unfortunate things about this simplicity is
that this is the character class most
often foisted off on the beginning gamer. Never played before? Be a fighter. They have a high
survivability (good HPs and AC) and are pretty effective at the simplest method
of “conflict resolution” in the game: charge the monster, roll D20. With the
prime requisite of Strength…and Strength’s ability to add to both attack and
damage…a 1st level fighter (with enough wealth for proper equipment)
is the MOST effective human class in B/X D&D; only the demi-humans (dwarf,
halfling, and elf) are more effective.

[why is the prime requisite important? Because in
B/X you are allowed to raise your prime by lowering other abilities. You can,
from Day 1, give yourself a boost to your fighting abilities. The demi-humans
share STR as a prime req, plus they get other special abilities and saving
throw bonuses…and they can still wear plate mail and shield and wield normal
(D8 damage) swords. It is only over the long-haul that the fighter
“out-classes” the B/X demi-humans by surpassing them in level…but that can take
a long time]

But when your least experienced players are the ones playing the fighter (because the other classes
are too complicate, hard to play, or risky for the newbie) it can lead to a devaluing of the class. Well, no…that’s
not really what I want to say. Over time,
it feels like fighter is “dump class” because that’s where newbies get “dumped”
when they’re still knuckleheads just trying to learn the game.

[which, of course,
is ridiculous since BASIC D&D is, by definition BASIC. So long as the level
of play is under 4th level, you might as well let anyone play
any class]

Now, readers may think I’m pointing fingers at their
blogs or campaigns or DMing ability and may have objections to my “assumptions”
of their style of play. No, that’s not the case. I’m talking about my own experiences – as a DM and as a
player in D&D games – and how, at least when I was younger, I
would encourage newbies to try the game as a fighter. And this despite actual evidence in play that it’s
possible for the best player and the biggest badass to be a simple (SIMPLE!
No feats! No weapon specialization!) fighter.

Because she was.

Having a high survivability and great ability to dish out
damage in melee makes the fighter the ideal leader of an adventuring party. And
do you want the least experienced player at the table leading your group? I sure
don’t!

But I’ll be honest: the fighter as “heroic leader” is not
something I’ve seen in play very often. In fact, in my B/X games I’d go so far
as to say “almost never.” But then, a lot of times I see a lack of leadership
in general (boy, that is a topic that REALLY deserves its own post!). Instead,
the fighters I usually see are:

-Big, dumb, plunge-ahead guy. “I’ve got an 18
strength and a two-handed sword.” This is the guy that leads with his foot
(kicking in the door) and blade. They don’t usually last too long (though, they
may be the last man standing if they, say, draw their party into a battle with
a nest of troglodytes).

-Skulking “hero.” I don’t really know how to
describe this. Oh, wait…sure I do. This is the guy who takes a fighter as a
character because “the party needs a fighter,” but he doesn’t really WANT to play a fighter. He might walk
point, but he’s hesitant to get into combat until the battle is joined and he’s
still acting in a “support” role…it’s just that his “support” is in melee.
These guys tend to survive a long time (because of cautious play coupled with
high survivability) unless they blow a saving throw but, man, they are armored
wussies.

Maybe it’s just a
guy thing. It’s funny, but when I think about it the best fighters I’ve
seen in D&D games have all been controlled by female players.Yes,
yes, there are women gamers who can act dumb or who “just want to kick ass”
(I’ve had that argument with people
before), but if given a chance (in
game) to think or interact, females playing fighters will usually step up to
the challenge.

In my
experience, this is in direct contrast to male players who are playing
fighters. Not that male players don’t want to interact with NPCs, puzzle out
obstacles and riddles, or think of clever things to do…plenty do. But (it’s weird now that I think about it) not
when they’re playing fighters. It’s like they step into the role of a
fighter and they decide to turn their brain to “off.” Even the “skulking
fighter” described above becomes TENTATIVE in play…while the same player as,
say, a cleric brings more to the table in the role. Also, it’s worth noting
that this “turn the brain off” mentality doesn’t apply to fighter “subclasses”
like paladins and rangers and archers and scouts (though, upon reflection, it
still applies to barbarians).

Maybe, male gamers are cerebral people who are
over-thinking (or under-thinking) the fighter class and don’t see the potential
in being a blunt object.

Dammit…this post is getting long, and I haven’t even
gotten to my whole B/X house rule I wanted to write about. Along with my thoughts from yesterday
(the simultaneous combat of melee), I think I’ve got fodder for a couple
separate fighter posts.

In fact, in reading over the blog, I see I’ve written
LOTS of posts on the other classes of B/X D&D and very little on the
fighter, other than to justify the abstract combat rules of D&D. Looks like
it’s time to rectify that situation.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

All right…just a quick thanks to all the folks who’ve
purchased a copy of Five Ancient
Kingdoms so far. I’ve been making a run to the post office pretty much
every day, and I’ve got another batch of dice ordered from Chessex (originally, I only order enough for half my initial print
run…really didn’t know how the whole shrink-wrapping thing was going to turn
out. Pretty well, as it turns out).

Okay, now onto Blood
Bowl.

Once again the usual frustration sets in…Blood Bowl is NOT football. And
I’m not just talking about the obvious differences like the presence of
man-eating monsters or a player roster calculated in gold coins. It just
doesn’t model the game very well, especially in terms of stats and player
development.

For example, Russell
Wilson is the current quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks. He was pretty stellar last year as a rookie,
tying Peyton Manning’s year one record for touchdown passes (and not coming
anywhere close to Manning’s interception numbers from his rookie year). Now in Blood Bowl, passers are not awarded Star Player Points (the BB equivalent
of XP) for “touchdown passes” but they do get points for rushing touchdowns and
completions at a rate of 3 points
and 1 point each (respectively). There’s
no such thing as “preseason” in BB, but there are play-offs, and play-off
achievements count towards player development.

Wilson in his first and only (thus far) season had 252
completions (64% accuracy with a 100.0 passer rating) in the 2012 season and
four rushing touchdowns. He added 39 completions (62.9% with a 102.4 rating)
and added one more rushing TD. This works out to a total of 306 SPPs.

306 SPPs after a single season…and that’s not counting
game balls he may have received (the NFL equivalent of a match MVP award, worth
5 SPPs); I’m sure he received one or
two of those. SPPs max out at around 160 if I remember correctly? Certainly by
250…it depends on the edition, and the fact is there are few players who EVER
get that many SPPs. It’s just a lot harder to get completions and TDs in the Blood Bowl game based on the design of
the game.

But even trying to compare the two games is dumb because
BB does not emulate football. At
least not American football…the game
is much closer to a soccer match
with a constant move up and down the field, changes of possession, and an
eventual (one hopes) goal that resets the players in the middle of the field.
Yes, there’s a kick-off, but there’s no punting. There’s no striving to get
first downs…or struggle to prevent first downs from an opponent. No one is
trying to get out of bounds to stop the clock (going out of bounds is a Very Bad
Thing)…and if the ball does go out it is thrown back in…again, like soccer.
Also, like soccer, games are referred to as “matches” and the field as a
“pitch.”

Can you tell BB was written and developed by English game
designers?

So it kind of bugs me. Not because I’m not a fan of
soccer (my Mexican wife cured me of any bias against the sport many years ago),
but because I want my Blood Bowl to play like football.
American football is an intense number of big play snap shots, strung together.
Back at the fencing salle, we used
to refer to our sport as “physical
chess” (at least, I remember hearing that term bandied about quite a bit),
but for my money the move and counter-move of football (with breaks in-between
plays) is much more like pacing out a turn-by-turn strategy game.

[that’s not meant
to offend my readers who fence, by the way. But in my experience, the thought
process in fencing, the move-and-countermove is much too quick to compare to chess…it’s more about intuition and
instant recognition and the training of the hand and footwork. I think fencers
like to compare their sport to chess because they pride themselves in the
anachronism of the two classic art-sciences…and because both fencing and chess
has more than its fair share of intellectual arrogance]

In football, coaches draw up plays and strategies and
“schemes”…often specifically designed for their opponent of the week…and then
attempt to execute those plays. The opponent counters…and then you tweak and
try to “counter the counter.” What part of that doesn’t sound like a turn-based
strategy game…played out on a giant stage with giant playing pieces?

Of course, the other problem with trying to mimic a
single snap of football is the same problem that arises in your average fantasy
RPG combat “round:” players need to act and react simultaneously. A melee
combat is not a swing-by-swing turn-taking process, nor is it a choreographed
cinematic swashbuckling affair. Instead it’s an explosive “ATTACK!” with
everyone going at everyone else at the same time. I guess, in an ideal world,
you’d just submit your instructions to your team (or party), press “go” and see
how they execute against the other guys.

Oh, wait…they already have video games that do that kind
of thing, right? Madden NFL and whatnot?

Well, I’m not terribly interested in playing out computer
games featuring normal human NFL teams…I prefer to watch those on TV. What I’d
like to play is a fantasy
football game where the troll player eats the hobbit he just tackled, or where
the dark elf magician brings down the ogre running back with some fancy
evocation. I just want to do it with downs and schemes and play-calling. I
don’t want the fantasy board game equivalent of that vibrating metal board.

ANYhoo…you know
this is actually a good segue into another post I’ve been working over
regarding combat options for B/X (What, JB? You still have an interest in B/X
gaming? Of course, folks). I’ll do what I can to get that one up on Ye Old Blog
by tomorrow…though that might turn out to be a two- (or three-) parter.

[sorry, not trying
to be a tease…I really am just busy, people]

I will say that this whole conversation – the
frustration, thinking about it, writing about it – has put me off my urge to
break out the minis this year. That and the lack of time to paint, of course.

At least I get a chance to watch the ‘Hawks take on the
Packers tomorrow. Too bad it’s still only preseason.

As some folks have already realized (judging by the purchases), two of the PDFs for Five Ancient Kingdoms went live yesterday (August 21). I would have let folks know sooner than this, but I was busy spending quality type with my child, eating pizza and watching episodes of American Ninja Warrior before the bath and bedtime ritual. You know how it is.

Anyway, better late than never.

Volume 1: Men and Mettle is available for $4.99. That's a pretty low buy-in to see if the system looks like something that piques your interest. Volume 2: Magic and Monsters provides the info on the magic system (a bit different from Vance...as with combat, I went back to CHAINMAIL as a foundational base) as well as the requisite "bestiary" for a game of this type. Of course, I bothered to provide a Monster Cosmology to explain why we have the monsters listed (spoiler alert: not based on Tolkien). Volume 2 is the same price in PDF as Volume 1 ($4.99). Between the two, you'll have everything you need to participate in the game as a player (the third book provides the info referees need to run the game).

Personally, my preference is that people will order the print copy of the game rather than download the PDFs...they are, after all, designed to be used at the table in-play. I realize that some people are simply purchasing these as a matter of "curiosity;" a look at one man's version of D&D Mine. Fine and dandy: this whole project was started due to my frustration with the stupid-ass-ness of "D&D Next" and the belief that ANYone could write "a new version of Dungeons & Dragons." Despite the use of Chainmail, despite the specific setting, despite the lack of "armor class," most folks should easily recognize many familiar parts of their favorite fantasy game...in fact, some parts of it may be more recognizable than what you find in the latest editions of D&D. Other things, well...

Look, folks, this is not my personal attempt to conquer the fantasy gaming market from the power players. I wanted to show what could be done, given a little work, some public domain art, and MS Word. If people play it, I'll be elated...that's the reason it's in the format it is. That's the reason I sell it in print with dice. But if people will only use it to inspire themselves and write their own game rather than sit around waiting for Hasbro to gouge them with D&D Next followed by editions 6th, 7th, and 8th...if you'll just do that with my little game, then I'll be well and truly satisfied by the exercise.

One person folks; I'm just one person. The thing turned out pretty good for just one guy (and a couple-three proof readers). And I'm not the first or only person to go this road.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Bloggers aren't writers. That is to say, just because a person has a blog doesn't automatically make them a "writer." Yes, there are writers that have blogs, but there are many, many non-writers that have blogs, too: artists and chefs and journalists and house-spouses and athletes and humorists and hack game designers. Blogs are a wonderful outlet for creative expression, and people of all-stripes have made good use of them...it doesn't mean they're all frustrated authors.

Really. I didn't get into blogging to write books (or even game supplements), even though this particular blog has led to that activity. But I'm certainly not a guy with an unpublished novel sitting on the shelf. I tried my hand at writing a short story the other day for Tim Shorts's little writing project, and after reading back over the first three pages, realized what I'd written is absolute crap. I'd post it here, just to show you what I mean, but people already think I beat up on myself too much.

Well, this isn't about beating up on myself, or anyone else. Just because bloggers may not be "writers" in the sense of being trained to write with plotting and pacing and all that jazz, doesn't mean they don't have value. There's a sharing of ideas that occurs in airing one's views in the public forum of the internet, a rolling around of thoughts and concepts that can lead to constructive discussion and (sometimes) constructive action. Sure, it can lead to a lot of dumb-dumb posturing and "flame wars" and whatnot also...but the potential for good stuff still exists.

Plus: outlet for creative self-expression. Blogging in and of itself is valuable to the participants.

But that's not what this post is about. I just wanted to point out that bloggers aren't writers because I wanted to put a pin in the notion that bloggers suffer from "writer's block." Writer's block (according to my handy-dandy wikipedia reference) is a condition that affects a writer's ability to produce new work. Bloggers don't have this problem...posting to a blog is as easy as snapping a picture of your sleeping dog and uploading it to the internet with a funny caption. Producing "new work" is as easy as typing "I've been sick this week" or "the in-laws are in town" and hitting publish on Ye Old Blogger. A blogger is never "blocked" in his or her ability to produce new blog posts...unless they suddenly lose access to the internet.

However, bloggers definitely suffer from slumps.

A "slump" is a sports term, one I hear most often applied to baseball. It's used to apply to a period of subpar performance...like when an otherwise decent batter fails to get a hit or draw a walk for a couple weeks, or when a usually competent closer blows three or five saves in a row. Sometimes a slump - if it's extended long enough - can lead to a player being "sent down" to the Minor Leagues, and may be a precursor to retirement from the sport...if you can't perform at the same level to meet their own expectations, some folks will hang up their spikes and look for a different line of work.

[I've been watching a lot of baseball this season, and following the Seattle Mariners means being subjected to a LOT of slumping players, unfortunately]

The hope, of course, is that players will "play through" and eventually break out of their slump, coming back to their former quality output of play (at least, if they're a young player) or a state of relative adequacy (for older veterans intending to retire soon anyway).

Bloggers go through slumps. Periods where their creative output is "subpar," either in terms of quality or quantity or both. Sometimes this leads to a blogger's "retirement" from the game of blogging. Sometimes, it's just a down cycle and the blogger eventually returns to form...or at least an "adequate level" of performance. As in baseball, a lot of different factors can contribute to slumps, both on the field and off (i.e. on the internet and in the home life).

I'm going through a bit of a slump myself right now. I'm hoping to break out of it soon, but I do want to post more than just "updates on book sales." That's not really what this blog is about.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

It's not the first time he's jabbed me, but it's the first time it's been bad enough to go to the emergency room. Unfortunately, being single this week means I had to wait a few hours till my mom could come watch D, while Steve-O drove me to the hospital. Lots of pain...the howling kind. It was scaring the child, you know.

Beer helps.

Anyway, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, I hate doctors. Not the doctors themselves (nice, caring individuals) but the "modern" practice of medicine. As I told Steve-O, a trip to the doctor (generally) ends with them doing nothing for me except prescribing heavy duty narcotics. Like I need that.

[it's not that I can't sleep...I just don't have time to sleep]

But we went to the doctor anyway. The diagnosis: corneal abrasion. My vision seems not to terribly affected (a little blurry, but it should recover soon) and a lot of pain. I should heal with time.

In other words, the doctor could do nothing...though he did prescribe me a huge allotment of vikes for the pain.

So, while I have enough vikes (in street value) to fund a small print run, I am instead not taking the drug, but rather killing the second half of this growler...

[and I fell asleep...woke up to about 5 pages of "wwww..." on this post]

Today was bad...couldn't drive today (though I tried). Had to take a Vicodin, and it helped, but most of the day I was pretty worthless (well, D and I had fun doing puzzles). Right now we're doing beer, pizza and Seahawks in what was billed as a "possible Super Bowl preview." I can only hope the Super Bowl looks like this (33-7 over the Broncos at halftime).

Ugh. I still have to get those PDFs uploaded for sale in the next couple days. AND I have more shrink-wrap and mailing to do. I had a LOT of things on my schedule for this weekend and this downtime has just SUCKED! Aaaarghh! Hopefully I'll be back in action by tomorrow or Monday.

Friday, August 16, 2013

Okay, so I lied a bit in yesterday's 5AK update: I did get those three packets in the mail before the post office closed, but I didn't get "all" my mailing done, since I got three new orders the same day. Looks like another Jimmy Johns/USPS lunch for me today.

Thanks for the business, though.
: )

And speaking of business (or "bidness" as I sometimes pronounce it): because I'm selling a complete game now (and not just supplements for use with B/X), I've decided it's time to actually build a web site "for support of the product." This is going to be nothing super-exciting...remember, I'm just a little above neanderthal level when it comes to technology. However, it will be a place to move my product
"buttons" to (off the blog) and will include forums for discussion of Five Ancient Kingdoms and other products. I will, of course, let people know when it's up and running (hopefully in a couple weeks).

After that I can get business cards, and a facebook account, and a car with my logo on it....

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Okay, first a quick 5AK
update: almost all my mailings have gone out, and I should have the last
three in the mail today. I have the car this week (one o the “perks” of the
wife being out of the country) and I’ve been using the opportunity to make
daily post runs on my lunch break.Postage costs have been higher than I anticipated because all the
packets have been an ounce heavier than my original “test” mailing…which is
just weird. Did I use a different size envelope with first one? Did the
addition of the adventure really add a full ounce?

Well, whatever…I’ll just eat the cost for now. The thing
that REALLY bites, though, is the way the post office has changed their customs
forms. They now have to manually enter all the info off the customs form into
their computer for each mailing? WTF? I never had this issue with my last two
books…just sending a single packet to Canada added an extra 5-10 minutes to my
time at the post office yesterday. And today I’ve packets going to both the UK
and France! Good thing I’ve got a Jimmy Johns just a couple blocks away.

[my lunch break is only 30 minutes]

So, yeah, people should start seeing their books arrive
in the next few days. I know Gary’s
Games (my local retailer) has sold a couple copies and asked for more, so
the game is already in the hands of some folks.

Okay, so…Dresden Files. Had the chance to play this at Dragonflight this year and wanted to
talk about the experience. Especially with regard to “role-playing” and in
comparison to my recent play-test of D&D Next (i.e. 5th Edition Dungeons
& Dragons).

[oh no! Not this
can o worms again!]

Yep…a little bit.

Dresden is one of those games that I don’t own, haven’t read,
and (previously) had no interest in purchasing or playing. It uses the FATE game system, itself a derivation of the FUDGE (universal) game system, and I’m
not a fan of FUDGE. I’m not a fan of “universal systems,” as they tend to be
bland and generic (duh), drawing any flavor from the setting material or theme
assumptions you try to slap on…and I prefer a system that synchs game mechanics
tighter to the gameplay/style of the game. FUDGE with its subjective,
descriptive phrases makes me cringe even more. What’s the difference between
“good” and “great,” really?

Whatever…I’m an old fuddy-duddy curmudgeon in that
regard. FATE offers a couple upgrades over FUDGE, and I enjoyed playing Spirit of the Century (which uses a version of FATE as well) the last time I
was at Dragonflight. A lot of fun actually.

But then, SotC allowed me to live out some of my pulp
fantasies (I absolutely love early
pulp...). The Dresden Files? It’s “Harry Potter” meets detective noir. At
least, that’s what it looks like, and I’m not a fan of Harry Potter. Yes, I’ve
read the books and watched the films, but that’s because I’m a completest: I want to know how the story
ends…even if the story’s not particularly compelling. The idea of a magical
world living side-by-side with a mundane world, basically cooperative, kind of
not-so-but-somewhat-secret…it’s like “World of Darkness Lite.”

More fun than it looks.

So yeah…not a big fan of the “fudgy-ness” of FATE, not a
big fan of the Dresden theme (haven’t read the fiction nor watched the show),
so why would I be interested in the game?

Well, turns out it’s a lot of fun actually.

And in ways I wasn’t really expecting. For one thing, the
game made it very easy for me to role-play, and here I mean it in my
own terms of putting myself in my imaginary character’s shoes. And this despite
being an “indie” game…remember me talking about how “authorial stance” doesn’t facilitate role-playing because it takes you out of
the character’s perception? You don’t remember that? Well, it was a pretty rambling set of posts.

Let me walk you through my experience: I wasn’t doing
anything so I showed up at the Story Games Lounge just as they were deciding
what game to play. A couple people voted for Dresden and I wasn’t about to rock
the boat. Ogre (the GM) had a “canned adventure” ready for Dresden and handed
out pre-gen characters…characters that had been played before and thus were a
little developed based on past players.

My character sheet was a mass of gibberish…or rather, a
mass of jargon with which I wasn’t familiar. I had a bunch things that looked
like skills, ranked from +1 to +5. I had a bunch of magical gear, some of which
was self-explanatory (healing potions), most of which weren’t (“vial of
tears?”). I had a bunch of “aspects” which were descriptive one-liners…these
things I remembered vaguely from 2010 (when I last played a FATE game) but I
didn’t remember exactly how they worked mechanically. Some, like “good kid from a bad family” looked
useful while others, like “channel my
inner Admiral Ackbar,” were baffling to me (and I say this as a Star Wars fan who knows Admiral Ackbar).
My character’s concept was something like Young Wizard Malcontent or
something…a slacker 20-something who’s part of the local “wizard council” (or
whatever) but has issues with authority (mainly due to his own apathy,
probably).

Not every character at the table was a wizard: one dude
was a (mundane) cop assigned to the Special Investigation (“supernatural”)
unit. One was an older wizard “warden” (like the badass, magical “sheriff” of
the territory). Two characters were supernatural non-wizards: a
half-goblin/fae/changeling prankster and a dude who was like Wolverine without the claws (a brawny
brawler with super-hard bones and regenerative abilities). The adventure was
the kind of throwaway one-off you’d expect: someone got murdered, the police
figure out supernatural beings are involved, SI cop drags his usual
supernatural cronies into the investigation, and hilarity ensues. Or bloodshed.
Or whatever. You get the gist.

What I’d like to do, though, is note the similarities
between the (real life) circumstances of this game and my play-test of D&D
Next. In D&D Next I also sat down with a group of (mostly) strangers and
(very) casual acquaintances. I was given a rule set similar to something I’d played before, but that I still needed a
little over-view of. I was given a character sheet for a semi-developed
character with a bunch of (to me) gibberish…about the same length,
too...including equipment, skills, and some special feats/stunts, abilities.
Like the Dresden game, I was presented with a fairly obvious scenario: there’s
a subterranean gnome community that needs help reclaiming their ancestral
caverns that have become infested with non-friendlies. The players have a
diversity of character concepts, all of which interact (mechanically) with the
game environment in similar ways, if with different color.

Challenges will be presented. Players will address those
challenges. “Stuff” will happen.

Now there WAS a difference in the type of character I
played in the games: my DDN character was a dwarf fighter, while I purposefully
decided AGAINST taking the “basic fighty-guy” in Dresden. It was offered to me
(perhaps because it was my first foray into Dresden and only my second time
with FATE), but I declined it in favor of the “snot-nosed kid.” I wanted to try
something different.

[not that it really
matters that much…I tend to play all characters the same regardless of concept]

The scenario in Dresden
unfolded the way one would expect: you find clues in a scene, it leads you to a
different scene. Sometimes there’s a fight at a scene. All leading towards the
inevitable showdown with the “main bad guy” in a final, climactic scene. I’ve
seen this kind of thing a lot over the years (typical World of Darkness type
scenario). Having not read the rules, I don’t know if this is the typical
Dresden scenario (the protagonist, Mr. Dresden, is
a detective, right?).

All in all, pretty standard…which is what I would say of
the D&D Next scenario, too. Not much surprising, fairly linear in the
lay-out from “start” to “objective.” The players in both cases were a mixed
bag, both regard to skill level (with the rules) and level of engagement (with
play itself). In both case the DM was perfectly competent to run and referee,
neither limiting the players through their decisions, nor providing exceptional
surprises or “twists” in the action of the game.

I should also point out that both systems (DDN and Dresden) provide little kewl things
(feats, stunts, powers…whatever you want to call it) that allow your character
to operate outside the standard rules of the game, generally as an expendable
resource. Okay? Same stuff with different jargon.

Having said all THAT, I will say that the Dresden Files most definitely
facilitated the act of role-playing and D&D
Next most certainly did not.

The difference was not the GMs running the game. The
difference was not the players participating or the quality of their
interaction with each other. The difference was not an exciting “adventure”
that required a bunch of brain power or socializing with NPCs. The difference
wasn’t minimalist rules or character sheets. The difference wasn’t a “lack of
dice rolling” (I rolled more dice in Dresden
than I did in the game of D&D Next).
The difference was a lack of combat or danger: I actually missed a good section
of the adventure (as I explained before) but came back in time for the whole
climactic showdown with big, mean sorcerer and bunches of gun-wielding goons.

The difference was the SYSTEM…the mechanics of the game. One game (Dresden) forced me, again and again, to consider who I was as the
imaginary character. It put me firmly in the shoes of my character…making me
consider my game play from my character’s perspective. Here’s how:

When your character tries to do, well, pretty much anything at all interesting, you roll
four “FATE dice” to see how effective you are. A FATE die is a six-sided die
with two sides marked “+,” two sides marked “-,” and two blank sides; these
stand for +1, -1, and 0 respectively. The result of your roll is added to your
skill (+1 through +5) to arrive at a number that tells you how good your
attempted action turns out. Especially with regard to combat and damage, these
results are fairly objective…many times you have to overcome a specific target
number (like the skill level of an opponent) in order to succeed.

I don’t own FATE dice, so I was rolling a set provided to
me by the GM. My dice rolled shitty the entire session, mostly rolling negative
and never rolling higher than +1 (that I remember). To compensate for this, you
are allowed to tap “aspects” (those one-line descriptions) if you can apply it
to the action; each aspect can be tapped once per action and gives you a +2
bonus to the result of your roll. You are also required to spend a FATE chip
(like a poker chip) for each aspect tapped. Whether because my character was a
wizard or young or both, I started with fewer chips than the other PCs (I
believe I started with three), but I was awarded one every time I did something
clever or interesting or made a cool choice of action based on my character’s
descriptive aspects.

The thing is, I was forced to take actions (or motivate
my character) based on my descriptive aspects because of my shitty dice rolls.
Even when I didn’t roll terrible, I was still
spending chips and tapping aspects because I wanted to get bigger successes. I was milking the system, constantly emptying my
chip total as fast as they were awarded, and fully engaged in the
mindset/personality of my character, because that was the only way for me to achieve
effectiveness in the game. It didn’t matter, that my character wasn’t
the strongest-toughest, or the biggest badass wizard, or the goblin-girl who’s
stealth rolls ended up with “legendary” results every time because of various
stacking feats and stunts and circumstance bonus. I, as a player, was fully in
the mindset of my character AND still affecting the outcome of the adventure
scenario simply by using the built-in mechanics of the game. I was the
character that ruined the Big Demon-Summoning Ritual, and put a bullet in the
Head Witch, and then later found said-witch (after she made a magic “quick
escape”) with a ritual designed to follow the bullet I’d left in her. Pretty
good considering my character seemed to have been designed to control wind and
water and heal folks.

[as I’ve said
before, I don’t really do “cleric.” In the end, as usual, I ended up leading
the charge into battle and mucking everything up for the bad guy in my typical
show-boat fashion. The GM later told us he’d run this scenario several times in
the past and this was the first time anyone had ever actually stopped the demon
from being summoned…most times the Wolverine guy would charge the summoning
circle and get possessed and then turn on his buddies. I used my “wind
evocation” to fly ahead of everyone and then used “water control” to wreck the
summoning circle. The gun-play only came about because there’s a prohibition on
wizards using magic to kill people, but in the end it worked out for the best
when I had the idea to track the bullet]

I never did “channel my inner Admiral Ackbar,” though.

The aspects I did
use included things describing the character’s personality, ethics, likes and
dislikes. Things like “my friends are my family,” “mortal lives are in danger,”
and “Erik’s not a bad guy…when people are trying to kill us.” The last referred
to the character’s prickly relationship with the wizard warden – the stereotype
“old guard vs. young buck” kind of dynamic. The other PCs used their aspects to
do cool things as well: in one memorable instance, the cop used his cop
authority to make all the mook cultists throw down their weapons, instead of
doing the otherwise inevitable (and drawn-out) gun battle with a bunch of
AK-47-armed, meth-head Satanists.

[just to contrast,
back in my Vampire the Masquerade days,
this is exactly the kind of thing that would take up hours of game play without
being exceptionally interesting to the game]

SO…fun time had by all and quite a bit of (what I would
consider) actual role-playing. Based
on the mechanics of the game and the way the game-play unfolded. Now, am I
anxious to get down to the shop and pick up a copy of Dresden Files? Or some other FATE-based game? No, not really.

Why not?
Because, fun as it was to play I’m
not terribly interested in running the game. I had a blast playing a character
in the game (even someone else’s pre-gen character) but I would not want to act
as a GM for the game…and if I purchased Dresden
with the idea of introducing it to the players at my table, chances are I’d be
running it. And the GM part of Dresden
just doesn’t look all that fun to me. To me, it looks like the GM’s game (with Dresden) is very much dependent on what
your players are bringing to it.In D&D (and similar games), this isn’t the case: if the PCs don’t
bring their “A” game, it just means they get killed…and killing players is
plenty fun. I get the impression that character death isn’t really a feature of
game play in FATE (judging by how difficult it is to even damage a non-mook
NPC)…so unless your players are ready to dive in to the role-playing and start
burning those chips, your game’s just going to be dull, dull, dull. I’m also
not sure if or how the “character development” works in FATE; as a one-off
session, the game worked great, but how do characters change over time in an
extended campaign/saga?

ANYway…I was impressed with the gameplay and wouldn’t
mind playing again (as a player, mind
you). After dipping my toe into FATE on two occasions, I find myself a bit
intrigued with its particular mechanics, wondering how it might be used in
other settings/themes, perhaps in a streamlined form. Maybe I’ll check out a
couple of these other FATE games (like Bulldogs! or John Wick’s Houses of the Blooded).
I just wish the books had fewer pages.